Many people today think that the argument about the
origin of life is between the scientific view of evolution and the religious view of
creation - it isn't!
Darwin said before his book was published ...
1. 'You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will
be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than
collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of
the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade
himself of the truth of his own dogmas.'
Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the
concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal',
The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
SO, IS EVOLUTION SCIENTIFIC?
2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists
have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'
H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A
physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.
IS IT A FACT? OR A FAITH?
3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the
peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science
or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in
special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to
the present, has been capable of proof.'
L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species,
J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi.
4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario
describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted
on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written.'
Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland, USA), 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information
theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67, 1977, p. 396.
CAN EVOLUTION BE OBSERVED?
5. 'Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected
within the lifetime of a single observer.'
David B. Kitts, Ph.D. (zoology) (School of Geology and Geophysics,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA). 'Palaeontology and evolutionary theory'.
Evolution, vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
CAN EVOLUTION BE TESTED?
6. 'It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to
find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are
not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.'
Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior
Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D.
Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San
Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.
7. 'Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be
refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it.
It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can
think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few
laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency
far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most
of us as part of our training.'
Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch
(Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), 'Evolutionary history and population
biology'. Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352.
8. 'These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as
impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse
transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals
involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just
such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for
"proofs" of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory.'
Theodosius Dobzhansky (late Emeritus Professor of Zoology and Biology,
Rockefeller University), 'On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology, Part 1,
biology'. American Scientist, vol. 45(5), December 1957, p.388.
DO THE FACTS PROVE EVOLUTION?
Darwin said:
9. 'For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on
which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite
to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and
balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here
impossible.'
Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2. Also quoted
in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
What do the facts prove?
10. 'Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the
theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which
would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and
their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.'
Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia),
1980 Assembly Week address.
What do the facts say?
11. 'Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of
theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing
opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanised, robotlike
accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable
interpretation.'
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University),
'The validation of continental drift' in his book Ever since Darwin, BurnettBooks,
1978, pp. 161-162.
12. 'Now and then a scientist stumbles across a fact that seems to solve one of the
great mysteries of science overnight. Such unexpected discoveries are rare. When they
occur, the scientific community gets very excited.
But excitement is not the best barometer of scientific validity. Science, said Adam
Smith, should be "the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm". The case of
disappearing dinosaurs is a fascinating demonstration that science is not based on facts
alone. The interpretation of the facts is even more important.'
Robert Jastrow, Ph.D. (physics) (Director, Institute for Space Studies, USA),
'The dinosaur massacre'. Omega Science Digest, March/April 1984, p. 23.
Evolution: Fact or faith?
13. 'With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat
embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not
demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle,
science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its
own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take
place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.'
Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. (anthropology), 'The secret of life' in The Immense
Journey, Random House, New York, 1957, p. 199.
What did Darwin achieve?
14. 'His theory had, in essence, preceded his knowledge - that is, he had hit upon a
novel and evocative theory of evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy either
himself or others that the theory was true. He could neither accept it himself nor prove
it to others. He simply did not know enough concerning the several natural history fields
upon which his theory would have to be based.'
Dr Barry Gale (Science Historian, Darwin College, UK) in his book, Evolution
Without Evidence. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8
February 1984.
Has anything changed?
15. 'In know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory
heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our
current ideologies instead of actual data'.
Dr David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging
our family tree'. Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45.
Therefore ... ?
16. 'One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it
a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realisation for over twenty years I
thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had
happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty
years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one
can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something
wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for
the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of
people.
Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one
thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of
Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the
Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of
evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person
said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school".'
Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History,
London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5
November 1981.
HAS EVOLUTION REALLY BEEN A HELP?
To the scientists?
17. ‘Darwin’s book - On the Origin of Species - I find quite
unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very
tentatively, with a special chapter on "Difficulties on theory"; and it includes
a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in
the fossil record.’ ...
‘As a scientist, I am not happy with these ideas. But I find it distasteful for
scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit in with their preconceived
ideas.’
Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), ‘Origin of
species’, in ‘Letters’, New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p. 452.
18. ‘There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last
week’s British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Salford was Dr
John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin
lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious
theory - that Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been
transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress.’ ...
Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging effect
on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless controversy, and to
the gross misuse of science".’
Dr John Durant (University College Swansea, Wales), as quoted in ‘How
evolution became a scientific myth’, New Scientist, 11 September 1980, p.765.
19. ‘Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in
the progress of science. It is useless.’
Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg
and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French
National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday, 8
March 1984, p. 17.
20. ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great
con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining
evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.’
Dr T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in ‘The Fresno Bee’,
August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor’s New
Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title page.
To the philosophers?
21. ‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to
which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the
future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be
accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’
Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures,
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
SO ... HOW UNSCIENTIFIC IS CREATION?
22. ‘This notion of species as "natural kinds" fit splendidly with
creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are
God’s individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty
and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are "instituted by the Divine Intelligence
as the categories of his mode of thinking." But how could a division of the organic
world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed
ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?’
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University),
‘A quahog is a quahog’. Natural History, vol. LXXXVIII(7),
August-September, 1979, p. 18.
23. ‘If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural
forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory, now quite out
of favour, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an
improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. I think, however, that we
must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.
I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject
a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.’
S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), ‘A
physicist looks at evolution.’ Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.
Even creation ex nihilo ?
24. ‘In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from
nothing (ex nihilo), as a result of established principles of physics. This
proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both. The novelty of a
scientific theory of creation ex nihilo is readily apparent, for science has long
taught us that one cannot make something from nothing.’
Edward P. Thyron (Professor of Physics, City University of New York, USA),
‘What made the world?’ New Scientist, 8 March 1984, p. 14.
DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW RANDOM CHANCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN ?
25. ‘The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it
just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an
intelligent Designer.’
Dr Richard Dawkins (Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK), ‘The
necessity of Darwinism’. New Scientist, vol. 94, 15 April 1982, p. 130.
But how complex are things .... ?
26. ‘But let us have no illusions. If today we look into the situations where the
analogy with the life sciences is the most striking - even if we discovered within
biological systems some operations distant from the state of equilibrium - our research
would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest
organisms.’
Ilya Prigogine (Professor and Director of the Physics Department, Universite
Libre de Buxelles), ‘Can thermodynamics explain biological order?’ Impact of
Science on Society, vol. 23(3), 1973, p. 178.
27. ‘And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most
complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.’
Dr Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of
Medicine; internationally known author), ‘In the game of energy and thermodynamics
you can’t even break even.’ Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p.
10.
So ???
28. ‘Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is
so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect
deliberate.’ ....
‘It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must
reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences to our left, even to the extreme idealized
limit of God.’
Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge
University) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at
University College, Cardiff), ‘Convergence to God’, in Evolution from Space,
J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp. 141 and 144.
29. ‘I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no
useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in
terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to
explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained
away by such naïve thoughts.’
Ernst Chain (world famous biochemist), as quoted by R. W. Clark, in The Life
of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1985, p. 148.
DO THE FOSSILS PROVE EVOLUTION ?
Darwin said in the 1850s
30. ‘Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic
chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the
geological record.’
Charles Darwin, ‘On the imperfection of the geological record’, Chapter
X, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp.
292-293.
But 120 years later!
31. ‘Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil
record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but
the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is
still surprisingly jerky and , ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic
cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in
North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed
information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few
data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So
Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a
record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most
reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of
the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling.’
Dr David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago),
‘Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology’. Field Museum of Natural History
Bulletin, vol. 50(1), January 1979, p. 25.
32. ‘Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to
evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very
important part of the general argument that is made in favour of darwinian interpretations
of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.’
Dr David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago),
‘Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology’. Field Museum of Natural History
Bulletin, vol. 50(1), January 1979, p. 22.
33. ‘It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as
a student, from Trueman’s Ostreal/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis
delanouei, have now been ‘debunked’. Similarly, my own experience [sic]
of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda
has proved them equally elusive.’
Dr Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College,
Swansea, UK), ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the
Geologists’ Association, vol. 87(2), 1976, p. 132.
34. ‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct
functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution.’
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University),
‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, vol.
6(1), January 1980, p. 127.
SO WHAT EVOLUTIONARY LINKS ARE MISSING?
Are there any transitional forms at all?
35. ‘... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of
evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly
have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such
transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly,
provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the
reader?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book
would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of
Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet
Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no
transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the
philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I
should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was
derived.’ I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one
could make a watertight argument.’
Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Colin Patterson, Senior
Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D.
Sutherland; as quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D. Sutherland, Master
Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.
36. ‘All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in
the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically
abrupt.’
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University),
‘The return of hopeful monsters’. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6),
June-July 1977, p. 24.
37. ‘Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been
its obvious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it
precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an
infinity of "missing links". The fossil record is replete with evidence favoring
organic evolution provided by short sequences of species with overlapping morphologies
arranged in a clinal manner with time; the same is true for many sequences of genera and
even for fairish number of families. However, once above the family level it becomes very
difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological evidence for morphological
intergrades between one suprafamilial taxon and another. This lack has been taken
advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the
theory. In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the "missing
links" has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.’
Arthur J. Boucot, Ph.D. (geology) (Professor of Geology, Oregon State University,
USA) in Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975, p. 196.
38. ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference,
however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism
that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large
extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the
extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these
views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Darwin’s argument still persists as the favoured escape of most paleontologists from
the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its
cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of
gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it
was never "seen" in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy
ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to
preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad
that we never see the very process we profess to study.’
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University),
‘Evolution’s erratic pace’. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(5), May
1977, p. 14.
39. ‘Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of
"seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists
the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology
does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the
record.’
David B. Kitts, Ph.D. (zoology), (School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of
the History of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA) ‘Paleontology
and evolutionary theory’. Evolution, vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.
40. ‘In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows,
that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories
above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known,
gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.’
George Gaylord Simpson, Ph.D. (Vertebrate Paleontology) (Simpson was Agassiz
Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
and also Professor of Geology at the University of Arizona, Tucson) in The Major
Features of Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1953, p. 360.
41. ‘It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly.
They are not, as a rule, led up by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners
such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. A great many sequences of two or a
few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level most species appear
without known immediate ancestors, and really long, perfectly complete sequences of
numerous species are exceedingly rare. Sequences of genera, immediately successive or
nearly so at that level (not necessarily represented by the exact populations involved in
the transition form one genus to the next), are more common and may be longer than known
sequences of species. But the appearance of a new genus in the record is usually more
abrupt than the appearance of new a new species: the gaps involved are generally larger,
that is, when a new genus appears in the record it is usually well separated
morphologically from the most nearly similar other known genera. This phenomenon becomes
more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known
orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.’
George Gaylord Simpson, Ph.D. (vertebrate paleontology) (Simpson was Agassiz
Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
and also Professor of Geology at the University of Arizona, Tucson), ‘The history of
life’ in The Evolution of Life, Sol Tax (editor), Vol. 1 of Evolution
After Darwin, The University of Chicago Centennial, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1960, p. 149.
ARE THOSE GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD REAL?
42. ‘But how good is the geological record? I have already mentioned that the
ordinary viewpoint of evolution held by most paleontologists favours gradual incremental
change. The fossil record, they say, is too incomplete to take seriously. And, they say,
you cannot prove a gap. But of course you can prove a gap, especially if clines occurred.
If there is a break in the record it must be possible to detect the break. The main point
about breaks is that, if they were really random, as proposed by Darwin, they must have
been plugged by one hundred and fifty years of work. But the gaps have not been plugged.
They still persist; yet authorities still plead the cause of failure of preservation. Such
authorities of a population being preserved, and then if that species lived 5-15 m.y., we
therefore will get 5-15 times the population fossilized. The trouble may perhaps have lain
more truthfully in our failure to find or describe the material. It is special pleading to
rely on gaps, and it is special pleading to propose inadequate preservation. We would do
better to look at what the record really says.’
Prof. J. B. Waterhouse (Department of Geology, University of Queensland,
Brisbane), Inaugural Lecture, 1980.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE FAMILY TREES?
43. ‘The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips
and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence
of fossils.’
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University),
‘Evolution’s erratic pace’. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(5), May
1977, p. 14.
FOSSILS AND EVOLUTION - WHO’S REASONING IN CIRCLES . . . ?
44. ‘Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support
the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we
use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we
then say the fossil record supports this theory.’
Ronald R. West, Ph.D. (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of
Paleobiology at Kansas State University), ‘Paleoecology and uniformitarianism’. Compass,
vol. 45, May 1986, p. 216.
TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR THE EVOLUTIONARY
ORIGIN OF . . . ?
THE PLANTS
45. ‘The facts derived from a study of fossil plants are of paramount importance
for the bearing they have had on the broader subjects of phylogeny and evolution. It has
long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through
which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but is must be
freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even
though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single
group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.’
Chester A. Arnold (Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University
of Michigan) in An Introduction to Paleobotany, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1947, p. 7.
46. ‘The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species,
but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy
of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution -
from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think
that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour or special creation.
If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it
would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how
an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any
evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I
think that most would break down before an inquisition.
Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga,
the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of
one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world
of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of
evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the
temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point,
of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly
tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the
bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we
to worship?’
Prof. E. J. H. Corner (Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK),
‘Evolution’ in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Anna M. Macleod and L. S.
Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 1961, p. 97.
THE FISHES
47. ‘The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the
fishes, and shortly after the time when fish-like fossils first made their appearance in
the rocks the Cyclostomes (or Agnatha), Elasmobranchiomorphs, and Bony Fishes are not only
already differentiated from each other and firmly established, but are represented by a
number of diverse and often specialised types, a fact suggesting that each group had
already enjoyed a respectable antiquity.’
J. R. Norman (Assistant Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum of Natural
History, London), ‘Classification and pedigrees: fossils’ in A History of
Fishes, Dr P. H. Greenwood (editor), third edition, British Museum of Natural History,
London, 1975, p. 343.
THE AMPHIBIANS
48. ‘. . . none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the
earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and
those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that
characterized the primitive tetrapods.’ . . . .
‘Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the
transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and
aerial breathing evolved . . .’
Barbara J. Stahl (St Anselm’s College, USA) in Vertebrate History:
Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, pp. 148 and 195.
THE BIRDS
49. ‘The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is
no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird
was achieved.’
W. E. Swinton (British Museum of Natural History, London), ‘The Origin of
Birds’, Chapter I, in Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, A. J.
Marshall (editor), Vol. I, Academic Press, New York, 1960, p. 1.
50. ‘It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved, assumed additional
functions, but how they arose initially, presumably from reptilian scales, defies
analysis.’ . . . .
‘The problem has been set aside, not for want of interest, but for lack of evidence.
No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent
investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation.’ . . . .
‘It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from
reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of
intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that
supposition.’
Barbara J. Stahl (St Anselm’s College, USA) in Vertebrate History:
Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, pp. 349 and 350.
THE MAMMALS
51. ‘Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in
the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It
disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended
species, although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related
species.’
Tom Kemp (Curator of Zoological Collections at the Oxford University Museum in
England), ‘The reptiles that became mammals’. New Scientist, vol. 92, 4
March 1982, p. 583.
52. ‘The [evolutionary] transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in
just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.’
Roger Lewin, ‘Bones of mammals´ ancestors fleshed out’. Science, vol.
212, 26 June, 1981, p. 1492.
53. ‘Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, paleontologists have been
forced to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammalian history in great part on the basis
of tooth morphology.’
Barbara J. Stahl (St Anselm’s College, USA) in Vertebrate History:
Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, p. 401.
THE HORSES
54. ‘Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series,
the decisive steps are abrupt, without transition: for example, the choice of the middle
finger for further transformation, as opposed to the two middle fingers, in the evolution
of the artiodactyls; or the sudden transition from the four-toed to the three-toed foot
with predominance of the third ray.’
Richard B. Goldschmidt (Professor of Genetics and Cytology, University of
California), ‘Evolution, as viewed by one geneticist’. American Scientist, vol.
40, January 1952, p. 97.
55. ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and
continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of
research it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as
including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the
present-day damans are horses. The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the
horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent
parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series.’
Prof. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWE Gleerup, Lund,
Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552.
56. ‘It would not be fitting in discussing the implications of Evolution to leave
the evolution of the horse out of the discussion. The evolution of the horse provides one
of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends
to a large extent upon who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact one
could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse.’
Prof. G. A. Kerkut (Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of
Southampton) in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, pp.
144-145.
Therefore in 1979 . . . .
57. ‘By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the
fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be
discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a
nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much
more complex and much less gradualistic.’
Dr David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago),
‘Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology’. Field Museum of Natural History
Bulletin, vol. 50(1), January 1979, p. 25.
WHERE DID THE PRIMATES (MONKEYS AND APES) COME FROM?
58. ‘In spite of recent findings, the time and place of origin of order Primates
remains shrouded in mystery.’
Elwyn L. Simons (Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, USA, and
Co-Editor of Nuclear Physics), ‘The origin and radiation of the
primates’. Annals New York Acadamy of Sciences, vol. 167, 1969, p. 319.
59. ‘. . . the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by
fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living
forms.’
A. J. Kelso (Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado),
‘Origin and evolution of the primates’, in Physical Anthropology, J. B.
Lippincott, New York, second edition, 1974, p. 142.
NOW TO MAN . . .
Are humans evolving?
60. ‘We’re not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we’re
not evolving. There’s no reason to think we’re going to get bigger brains or
smaller toes whatever - we are what we are.’
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) in
a speech in October 1983. As reported in ‘John Lofton’s Journal’, The
Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
61. ‘Without giving anything away beforehand he said evolution had come to a halt,
not because we had reached perfection, but because we had stepped outside the process two
million years ago.’
Ronald Strahan (former senior research scientist and Director of Taronga Park
Zoo, Sydney, and Honorary Secretary of ANZAAS, now working with the Australian Museum,
Sydney). Reported in Northern Territory News, 14 September 1983, p. 2.
Did humans ever evolve?
62. ‘Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose
morphology marks it as man’s hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability
is considered, the answer appears to be no.’
Robert B. Eckhardt, Ph.D. (human genetics and anthropology) (Professor of
Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, USA), ‘Population genetics and human
origins’. Scientific American, vol. 226(1), January 1972, p. 94.
63. ‘In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins
which were based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity. At the
moment science cannot offer a full answer on the origin of humanity, but scientific method
takes us closer to the truth’ . . . . ‘As far as geologically more recent
evidence is concerned, the discovery in East Africa of apparent remains of Homo in
the same early fossil sites as both gracile and robust australopithecines has thrown open
once again the question of the direct relevance of the latter to human evolution. So one
is forced to conclude that there is no clear-cut scientific picture of human
evolution.’
Introduction to, and article by, Dr Robert Martin (Senior Research Fellow,
Zoological Society of London), ‘Man is not an onion’. New Scientist, 4
August 1977, pp. 283 and 285.
64. ‘For example, no scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man,
without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved form some ape-like
creature in a very short space of time - speaking in geological terms - without leaving
any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.
As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for
caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so
astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this
field at all.’
Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.A., M.D., D.Sc. (anatomy) in Beyond the Ivory Tower, Taplinger
Pub. Co., New York, 1970, p. 64.
65. ‘Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no
yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked,
tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally
mysterious matter.’
Dr Lyall Watson (anthropologist), ‘The water people’. Science
Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.
What about the ape-men fossils?
66. ‘Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he
added that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was "imagination made
of plaster of paris", thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about
what species she belonged to.’
Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of
Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3.
Are the australopithecines (e.g. ‘Lucy’) in-between
apes and humans?
67. ‘In each case although initial studies suggest that the fossils are similar to
humans, or at the worst intermediate between humans and African apes, study of the
complete fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two
living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’ . . . .
‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes
and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of
this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large
differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by
prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’ . . . .
‘In this case, also, most of the new studies have come from laboratories
independent of those representing individuals who have found the fossils’.
Dr Charles E. Oxnard (formerly Professor of Anatomy and Biological Sciences,
University of Southern California, now Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology, University
of Western Australia) in Fossils, Teeth and Sex - New Perspectives on Human Evolution,
University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227.
Note: Oxnard’s conclusions on australopithecines have long been supported by the
research of anatomist Professor Lord Zuckerman (quoted in No. 64). Creationists have been
criticised for using Zuckerman’s conclusions because they predate the discovery of Australopithecus
afarensis (the famous ‘Lucy’) in 1974. Oxnard’s 1987 quotes
(above) are a more than adequate response.
68. ‘The entire hominid collection known today would barely
cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by
two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils
hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens
themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is
missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the
subject. Very few fossils indeed afford just one, incontrovertible interpretation of their
evolutionary significance. Most are capable of supporting several interpretations.
Different authorities are free to stress different features with equal validity, often
placing remarkable emphasis on the form they propose for the bits that are missing. Points
distinguishing the various interpretations may be so slight or unclear that each depends
as much upon the proponent’s preconceived notions as upon the evidence of the fossil.
Furthermore, since the meagre collection has accumulated so slowly, the long gaps between
discoveries have provided ample time for investigators to form very definite notions of
what ought to be found next. Zinjanthropus boisei is a good example of this
phenomenon, but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking
modern man and an extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human
evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study
of fossil man.’
John Reader (photo-journalist and author of Missing Links), ‘Whatever
happened to Zinjanthropus?’ New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802.
Go to Christians for
Truth Homepage
E-mail to CFT: cft@iafrica.com
